Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
N Mohamed Atham vs M/O Finance on 5 March, 2026
1 OA No. 380/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/00380/2024
Dated this, the 5th day of March Two Thousand Twenty Six
CORAM : HON'BLE MS. VEENA KOTHAVALE, Member (J)
HON'BLE MR. SISIR KUMAR RATHO, Member (A)
N.Mohamed Atham,
Superintendent of Central Excise (Retd),
13/57, West Street,
Kodikkalpalaiyam, Thiruvarur 610001. .....Applicant
By Advocate M/s. I.Kowser Nissar
Vs.
1.Government of India,
Ministry of Finance/Department of Revenue,
Rep by its Under Secretary,
2nd Floor, Hudco Vishala Building,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 66.
2.The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise,
No. 1, Williams Road, Cantonment,
Tiruchirappalli.
3.The Assistant Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Puducherry,
1, Goubert Avenue (Beach Road),
Puducherry 605001. ....Respondents
By Advocate Mr. Su. Srinivasan, SCGSC
2 OA No. 380/2024
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. Sisir Kumar Ratho, Member(A)) This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following reliefs:-
"(a) To set aside the Order of the 1st Respondent dated 01.01.2024 in Order No. 01/2024 in F.No. C-14012/20/2017-Ad.V/14157 and communicated by the 3rd Respondent vide Letter dated 18.01.2024.
(b) And consequently, direct the respondents to disburse all the monetary benefits."
2. The brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicant, are as follows :-
2.1 While the applicant was working as the Superintendent of Central Excise in the Karaikal Division, he was issued with a Show Cause Notice on 19.05.2009 stating that the bill dt. 08.02.2008 of lading number of certain cargo did not tally with the seal number mentioned in the import laden container and that betel nuts had been smuggled in the guise of cashew nuts.
The applicant submitted an explanation dt. 19.08.2009 requesting to drop further proceedings. Pursuant to the same, the 2nd respondent issued a Memorandum of Charges vide his proceedings dt. 15.11.2011 framing 12 charges in total. The applicant submitted a detailed submission to each charge framed stating that there is no question of revenue loss and that the charges are untenable.
2.2. After inquiry, the inquiry report dt. 20.12.2013 was submitted holding that one charge stands partly proved. The 2nd respondent disciplinary 3 OA No. 380/2024 authority on 29.03.2022 disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and called for an explanation from the applicant. The applicant submitted his explanation dt. 04.04.2022 in respect of the disagreement of the 2nd respondent with the inquiry report. The 1st respondent vide proceedings dt. 01.01.2024 imposed a penalty of withholding 20% of monthly pension for 03 years and gratuity, if required, based on the advice of the UPSC that charges against the applicant is partly proved.
2.3. The applicant submits that the alleged incident took place on 24.04.2008. The charge memo was issued on 15.11.2011 and the applicant retired on attaining superannuation on 31.12.2011. The proceedings were continued under Rule 9 (now Rule 8 of CCS Pension Rules). The disciplinary authority initially concurred with the inquiry report that charge memorandum stood party proved. It is further submitted that after a lapse of about 16 years, the impugned order was passed imposing a major punishment, thus withholding the applicant's retirement benefits at his age of 72 years. Aggrieved, the applicant has filed this OA seeking the aforesaid benefits.
3.1. The respondents have filed their reply opposing the relief prayed by the applicant. It is contended that the Disciplinary Authority i.e., Commissioner. Central Excise & Service Tax, Tiruchchirapalli, vide Memorandum dt. 15.11.2011 initiated in tuin Disciplinary Proceedings against the applicant under Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules 1965 alleging 4 OA No. 380/2024 negligence on the part of the applicant in verifying the seal number on the import laden containers before Customs Examination which led to illegal import of betel nuts by way of substitution of betel nuts with raw cashews, which in turn caused a loss of public revenue to the tune of Rs. 4,67,399/-. The said proceedings were continued as deemed proceeding under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 consequent upon retirement of the applicant on superannuation on 31.12.2011.
3.2. The respondents have contended that after denial of the charges, a regular inquiry was conducted by appointing Inquiring Officer and Presenting Officer. The Inquiry Officer submitted Inquiry Report dt. 20.12.2013 and held the charges against the applicant as "Partly Proved". On consideration of the Inquiry Report, the Original Disciplinary Authority tentatively agreed with the findings of the IO and referred the matter to DGoV, HQ for Second Stage Advice (SSA). The DGoV, HQ vide its letter dt. 27.04.2016 communicated its Second Stage Advice (SSA) advising imposition of Major Penalty. The SSA along with IR dt. 20.12.2013 was communicated to the applicant by the Original DA, for submitting his representation, if any. The applicant vide his letter dt. 18.05.2016 submitted his representations. Since the applicant retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2011, the disciplinary proceedings were deemed to be continued under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (now Rule 8 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021). Accordingly, the Original 5 OA No. 380/2024 Disciplinary Authority after completing the inquiry proceedings forwarded the case records to the Ministry for further necessary action. 3.3. Thereafter, the Finance Minister on behalf of the President, after considering the charge levelled against the applicant, the inquiry report, representation of the applicant and all other facts and circumstances relevant to the case, tentatively held that the proven charge against the applicant constituted grave misconduct and warrant imposition of a suitable penalty under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (Now Rule 8 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021) and referred the matter to Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) for its statutory advice. The case records were forwarded to UPSC for their advice but the same was returned with deficiencies. Accordingly, a letter dt. 08.03.2022 was issued to the original DA for curing the deficiency. Subsequently, the original DA issued a Disagreement Note (DN) on IO report dt. 20.12.2013 and forwarded the DN to applicant vide letter dt. 29.03.2022 for making his representation, if any. The applicant submitted his representation vide letter dt. 04.04.2022. The original DA examined the representation of the applicant and resubmitted the case records to the Ministry. The Disciplinary Authority, after re- considering the charge levelled against the applicant, the inquiry report, representation of the applicant on IO report, Disagreement Note, representation of the applicant on Disagreement Note and all other facts and circumstances relevant to the case, tentatively held that the proven charge 6 OA No. 380/2024 against the applicant constituted grave misconduct and warranted imposition of a suitable penalty under Rule 8 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, and again referred the matter to UPSC for its statutory advice. UPSC tendered its advice dt. 05.10.2023 that the charges established against the applicant constituted grave misconduct on his part and considered that the ends of justice would be met in this case, if the penalty of "withholding of 20%, (twenty percent) of the monthly pension otherwise admissible to the CO, Shri N. Mohammed Atham, is imposed on him for a period of 03 (three) years. His gratuity may be released, if not required to be withheld in any other case."
3.4. A copy of the UPSC advice was forwarded to the applicant for making his representation, if any. The applicant submitted his representation vide his letter dt. 04.12.2023 on the UPSC advice. From the representation of the applicant, it was observed that in the said representation no new facts observing further deliberations have been brought out by the applicant. After considering the applicant's representation, the facts and circumstances of the case, the Disciplinary Authority has decided to impose penalty of "withholding of 20% of monthly pension otherwise admissible to CO, Shri N. Mohammed Atham, is imposed on him for a period of 03 years. His gratuity may be released, if not required to be withheld in any other case." vide Order No. 01/2024 dt. 01.01.2024.
7 OA No. 380/20243.5. It is contended that there are several concrete evidences as a result of investigation as contained in the Show Cause Notice that clearly demonstrate the magnitude of the case and the very many occasions of mismatch of seals as per the B.Es/B.Ls vis-a-vis entries in the Register maintained in the CFS are dependable and accordingly Disciplinary Proceedings had also been initiated on other officers for these lapses on their part.
3.6. It is contended that had the applicant properly verified the seal number on the import laden containers before Examination, the substitution of betel nut with raw cashew would have been detected at initial stage itself. This resulted in evasion of duty by the importer thereby causing huge revenue loss to the exchequer, and hence, the charges are sustainable and accordingly, the final order was passed.
3.7. It is contended that there is no undue delay in the matter. The Disciplinary Proceedings were conducted strictly in accordance with the rules and regulations prescribed and observed the principles of natural justice. Every opportunity had been provided to the applicant to rebut the charges levelled against him. It requires careful consideration of case records and examination of documents before passing orders of penalty or otherwise. Further, it required coordination of effort between multiple agencies (viz. DRI, CVC, DGoV, UPSC etc.) and the exercise is time consuming. The decision to impose the penalty upon the applicant was taken by the President 8 OA No. 380/2024 of India after considering the nature and gravity of the proven charges and in consultation with the UPSC. Thus, the impugned order is just, fair and strictly in accordance with extant rules and procedure. Accordingly, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the OA as devoid of merits.
4. Heard both sides and perused the records.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the following judgments in support of his arguments :-
i. Order dt. 14.03.2023 of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 1724/2022 in the case of Pramodh Kumar Vs. GNCT of Delhi, through Commissioner of Police, Delhi and ors;
ii. Order dt. 23.01.2024 of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA 1563/2020 in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Vs. Union of India and ors;
iii. Order dt. 01.11.1995 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 9830 of 1995 in the case of B.C.Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and ors., reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749;
iv. Judgment dt. 30.04.1991 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2123 of 1991 with WP(C) No. 1287 of 1989 in the case of Nagaraj Shivarao Karjagi Vs. Syndicate Bank Head Office, Manipal and anr reported in (1991) 3 SCC 219;
v. Judgment dt. 08.08.2007 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2367 of 2007 in the case of Bongaigaon Refinery & P.C. Ltd & ors Vs. Girish Chandra Sarmah reported in (2007) 7 SCC 206.9 OA No. 380/2024
6. We have perused the citations submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents above. In the Pramodh Kumar Vs. GNCT of Delhi, through Commissioner of Police, Delhi and ors, the Principal Bench of this Tribunal has dismissed the OA as it did not fulfil the principles reiterated in Wednesbury Test/CCSU principles. However, it is seen that the impugned order in the disciplinary case was issued against the applicant while he was in service. Same is the case in Sanjeev Kumar Vs. Union of India and ors. In this case, the charge memo was issued in 2018 in respect of an issue relating to 2017 and the disciplinary authority's orders were passed in 2020, all while the applicant was still in service. Learned counsel for the respondents further cites the landmark judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.C.Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and ors. reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749 wherein also the impugned orders were passed while the charged Government servant was in service. It is also seen that in the citations submitted by the respondents there is no much delay between charge memo and completion of proceedings. Whereas in the present case, the charge memo has been issued in 2011 for an incident in 2008 and that too just a month before the retirement of the applicant and it continued for 12 years and 2 months before passing of the impugned order by the respondent authority in 2024. Further, when the delay of 12 years and 2 months for completing the proceedings is analysed, it is noticed that a delay of around 30 - 45 days could be attributed to the applicant ie., 13 days 10 OA No. 380/2024 for submitting reply to the respondent's letter dt. 05.05.2016 which was replied on 18.05.2016. Subsequently, the applicant has taken 5 days to reply to the disagreement note dt. 29.03.2022 of the 2nd respondent authority by replying on 04.04.2022 and on the 3rd occasion, the applicant replied on 04.12.2023 to the proceeding of Joint Commissioner dt. 22.11.2023. Thus, it is clear that although the respondent authorities have tried their best to justify, it fails miserably to cover up the delay of more than 12 years in concluding the departmental proceedings and that too after retirement of a Charged Government Servant. This in our view has caused irreparable damage to the applicant to defend his case which is contrary to the principles of natural justice.
7. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in various judgments has observed that mere delay in the disciplinary proceedings is not fatal. Inordinate and unexplained delay in concluding disciplinary proceedings which caused prejudice to the charged employee needs to be quashed. The Courts have held that such delay curtails an employee's right to a speedy trial and causes mental agony but if justified by the department, the proceedings may continue.
8. Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the order passed on 01.06.2013 in W.P No. 16717 of 2013 held that :-
"Ultimately, on 26.04.2013, which is after about 6 ½ years from the date on which the petitioner had submitted his further explanation, the impugned order of penalty came to be passed. On an overall view, in the manner in which the Disciplinary Authority had initiated the action against the petitioner and 11 OA No. 380/2024 concluded the same, there is an inordinate delay, which could have caused serious prejudice to the petitioner."
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Andhra Pradesh Versus N. Radhakrishnan vide order dt. 07.04.1998 has observed the following: -
"It is not possible to lay down any pre-determined principles applicable to all cases and in all situations where there is delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Whether on that ground the disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated each case has to be examined on the facts and circumstances in that case. the essence of the matter is that the court has to take into consideration all relevant factors and to balance and weight them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration that the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after delay particularly when delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay. The delinquent employee has a right that disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously and he s not made to undergo mental agony and also monetary loss when these are unnecessarily prolonged without any fault on his part in delaying the proceedings. In considering whether delay has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings the Court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay has occurred. if the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. It could also be seen as to how much disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take its course as per relevant rules but then delay defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse consideration."
(emphasis supplied)
10. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras in WP No. 21569 of 2008 in S. Sekhar Vs The Commissioner of Social Welfare vide order dt. 23.10.2009 has observed as follows: -
"11. Also, it is a settled proposition that while considering whether the delay has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings, the court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay has occurred. If the delay is unexplained, prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. It could also be seen as to how much the disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to 12 OA No. 380/2024 perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path, he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take its course as per relevant rules; but then, delay defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse considerations.
12. In the instant case, it appears that there was no delay on the part of the petitioner in concluding the enquiry proceedings. But the respondent has appointed Enquiry Officer at four different points of time to conduct the enquiry. Despite completion of the enquiry, no final order is passed in this matter. In the light of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court, it is clear that the delay is not on the part of the petitioner and it is only on the part of the respondent in concluding the proceedings. Simultaneous proceedings initiated by the Department as well as the criminal proceedings have ended in distinctive cause of actions. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the pendency of the criminal cases will cause delay in conclusion of the Departmental proceedings."
(emphasis supplied)
11. In the case of Union of India & Another Vs Hari Singh, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in WP (C) No. 4245 of 2013 vide judgment dt. 23.09.2013 has observed the following: -
"25. It is therefore trite that delay which is unexplained and unreasonable would cause prejudice to the delinquent employee. Such delay clearly manifests the lack of seriousness on the part of the disciplinary authority in pursuing the charges against the employee. In the event of any employee deviating from path of honesty, efficiency and diligence, action should expeditiously be taken as per prescribed procedure. The Supreme Court has laid down the principles holding that unexplained and unreasonable delay per se results in prejudice to the charged officer except when the employer can show that the employee was responsible for delay or is otherwise able to explain the delay. While evaluating the impact of the delay, the court must consider the nature of the charge, its complexity and for what reason the delay has occurred."
(emphasis supplied)
12. The Hon'ble Madras High Court vide their order dt. 22.07.2021 in WP No. 21697 of 2019 in the case of T. Kandasamy Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu & ors, has held that, 13 OA No. 380/2024 " 6. In service jurisprudence, the Enquiry Officer is required to complete the departmental proceedings within a reasonable time after following the due procedure of law and extending the principles of natural justice. In cases where there is an undue delay in completion of the departmental proceedings, it has been held in various decisions that the latches on the part of the employer in conducting the departmental enquiry would be fatal.
7. A learned Single Judge of this Court, in the case of Kootha Pillai Vs. The Commissioner, Municipal Administration and 4 others passed in W.P.No.15231 of 2006 dated 05.11.2008, had an occasion to refer to various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and ultimately held that the inordinate delay in initiating and completing the disciplinary proceedings, would cause prejudice to the delinquent and therefore, the proceedings itself cannot be continued. Some of the decisions referred to by the learned Single Judge in Kootha Pillai (supra) are as follows:-
"45. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh and another reported in 1990 (Supp) SCC 738, the Supreme Court had come down heavily against the latches on the part of the employer in conducting departmental enquiry and after finding out that there was no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay, held that it would be unfair to order departmental enquiry to proceed further.
46. In State of A.P., v. N.Radhakrishnan reported in 1998 (4) SCC 154, the Supreme Court, at Paragraph 19, held as follows:
"Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take its course as per relevant rules but then delay defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the Court is to balance these two diverse considerations."
47. In Union of India v. CAT reported in 2005 (2) CTC 169 (DB), this Court held that, "The delay remains totally unexplained. Therefore, we have no hesitation at all in concluding that the ground of inordinate delay in proceeding with the departmental enquiry as referred to above by us, would come in the way of the Govt., to continue with the enquiry any further.............."
48. In P.V.Mahadevan v. M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board reported in 2005 (4) CTC 403, this Court after referring to various decisions, held that, 14 OA No. 380/2024 "The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a government employee should, therefore be avoided not only in the interest of the government employee but in public interests and also in the interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of the government employees. At this stage, it is necessary to draw the curtain and to put an end to the enquiry. The appellant had already suffered enough and more on account of the disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the appellant due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much more than the punishment. For the mistakes committed by department in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer.
15. We therefore, have no hesitation to quash the charge issued against the appellant. The appeal is allowed. The appellant will be entitled to all the retiral benefits in accordance with law. The retiral benefits shall be disbursed within three months from this date. No cost."
49. In the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chepauk v. N.Sivasamy reported in 2005 (5) CTC 451, the Division Bench of this Court held as follows:
"Though the alleged lapse occurred in the year 1995 and certain charges related to the period 1993-94, the charge memo was issued on 15.07.1997 and served on 23.07.1997, just 7 days before the date of retirement. The contention of the appellant that only with a view to cause hardship, agony and anguish, the charge memo was issued cannot be ignored.................. We have already pointed out that though the applicant failed Original Application No. 6284/97, challenging the charge memo, dated 15.07.1997, admittedly, no stay was granted. Despite the above fact that the department had not proceeded with the disciplinary proceedings, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the department. According to the applicant, he is 67 years of age as on the date and had rendered 38 years of service in the department. He had undergone sufferings from mental worry, agony, anguish and hardship for all these years. We are satisfied that there is no need to pursue the charge memo, dated 15.07.1997."
50. In yet another decision in R.Tirupathy and others v. the District Collector, Madurai District and others reported in 2006 (2) CTC 574, this Court was pleased to quash the charge memo, dated 02.02.2005 on the ground that the charges relate to purchase of uniforms during the year 1994-95 and 1995-96 and the inordinate delay on the part of the department in issuing a charge memo was not properly explained.
15 OA No. 380/2024
51. The Supreme Court in M.V.Bijlani v. Union of India and other reported in 2006 (5) SCC 88, quashed the order of removal from service, confirmed by the appellate authority on various grounds particularly, on the ground that initiation of disciplinary proceedings after six years and continuance thereof, for a period of seven years prejudiced the delinquent officer.
52. In M.Elangovan v. The Trichy District Central Co- operative Bank Ltd., reported in 2006 (2) CTC 635, this Court, while quashing the second show cause notice on the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay in initiating and completing the disciplinary proceedings, allowed the Writ Petitions holding that the petitioners therein were entitled to all the benefits in accordance with law. The same view has been expressed by this Court in yet another decision in Parameswaran v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2006 (1) CTC 476."
X X X X
12. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned charge memo dated 30.04.2009 passed by the first respondent is quashed. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the first and second respondents herein to forthwith disburse all the retirement benefits due to the petitioner, together with interest at the rate of 10% from 30.04.2009, till the date of actual disbursement, along with the pensionary benefits. The first and second respondents shall endeavor to disburse the monetary benefits, atleast within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
13. There is yet another aspect which is revealed in the proceedings. The Inquiry Officer (IO) submitted Inquiry Report dt. 20.12.2013 and held the lone Article of Charge as 'Partly Proved' against the CO. On consideration of the Inquiry Report (IR), the Original Disciplinary Authority (DA) tentatively agreed with the findings of the IO and referred the matter to DGoV, HQ for Second Stage Advice (SSA). The DGoV, HQ vide its letter dt. 27.04.2016 communicated its Second Stage Advice (SSA) advising imposition of Major Penalty. At this stage, the case records were forwarded to UPSC for their advice but the same was returned with deficiencies. 16 OA No. 380/2024 Accordingly, the original DA changed his stand and issued a Disagreement Note (DN) on IO report dt. 20.12.2013 and forwarded the DN to CO vide letter dt. 29.03.2022 for making his representation, if any. All these show that the subsequent disagreement note of the original Disciplinary Authority is not an independent decision and appears to be heavily influenced by the advice of DGoV, HQ and UPSC casting serious doubt on the free and fairness in the proceedings. It could be possible that in order to play safe the original decision was disagreed in place of defending the original decision.
14. On the aspect of delay and laches which relates to the issuance of the charge memo, the issue is related to March 2008 and after more than a year, the applicant was issued a show cause notice for disciplinary proceedings on 19.05.2009 and thereafter no action was taken until a month before the retirement of the applicant. He was issued a charge memo on 15.11.2011. It is usual that in order to save themselves from audit objections at a later stage, the respondent authorities decided to issue a charge memo just before retirement. It is a pity state of affair that when an employee has an unblemished record of 36 years of service until just one month before the retirement, when he has been issued with a charge memo for an incident which occurred two years ago and thereafter the proceedings continued for more than 10 years.
17 OA No. 380/2024
15. To conclude, we are of the considered view that unjustified delay of more than 10 years in completing the disciplinary proceedings after retirement has caused serious prejudice to the applicant to defend his case who is in the sunset years of his life. The applicant deserves to lead a peaceful retired life at least now after 15 years of his retirement. Accordingly, the impugned penalty order dt. 01.01.2024 of the 1 st respondent and the subsequent communication dt. 18.01.2024 of the 3 rd respondent is quashed and set aside. The respondents are further directed to disburse all the monetary and retirement benefits to the applicant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
16. The OA is allowed. No costs.
(Sisir Kumar Ratho) (Veena Kothavale)
Member (A) Member (J)
05.03.2026
SKSI
Digitally signed
by HP
S.S. IYER, PS Date:
2026.03.17
17:47:21
+05'30'